24 Dec

Casey (& the Whole Blue Dog Team) Strikes Out! [Reader Post]

                                       

Isn’t it ironic that the more the nation turns “pro-life” and an ever-increasing majority recognizes how bad the monstrous health care plan is the more certain ‘conservative’ or ‘pro-life’ Democrats are caving in on these very issues? These are times that try men’s souls apparently. What sort of moral foundation of principles have you built for yourself when you so loudly declare something about your core beliefs and then so easily betray them exactly when support is building among the people you serve?!? Such historic crossroads as we face now certainly provide a test of all that.

Senator Nelson from Nebraska is the prime case du jour; he has not only accepted what is bribery in all but name (the Cornhusker Kickback), but he has accepted the so-called “Casey compromise” on abortion which puts the lie to all he has said in recent days. Casey produced a list of “faith” groups that support his euphemisms, but the US Bishops and all authentic pro-life groups have seen through the ruse. It effectively provides the opportunity for massive Federal funding for abortion. (See here and here)

Yes, as indicated above, Senator ‘CASEY JUNIOR’ of Pennsylvania (son of the that brave Senator Casey who experienced being blackballed at his own convention in 1992 and other real sacrifices for remaining true to his Faith) was way ahead of Nelson in betraying pro-life conservatives. He is opting for the same ‘symbolism-over-substance’ ploy used by Obama at Notre Dame. The Catholic Center Party in Germany during the 1930’s fell to this same tactic; they received reassuring ‘language’ from the National Socialists in return for some absolutely key votes that effected the transfer of power, which in turn negated any of the empty rhetoric used to co-opt them. It’s possible none of the disaster that followed would have happened if it weren’t for the ‘compromise’ of Franz von Papen and company.

We have every right to judge our representatives on such bases. True, only the “Judge of he living and the dead” has the right to assess the worth and ultimate destiny of anyone, but we have not only the right but the DUTY to assess their moral probity in carrying out their service to US. As I said last year regarding Barack Obama, we are “hiring” them and we have the right to take into account their moral standards as part of our assessment.

What do you say about the moral standards of “representatives” who act in such a way? I obviously do not want to vote for someone who espouses political views that directly oppose mine. That’s the easy part. Many commentators recently have realized that party politics are now in order. That is the judgment I think we have to make now. The Democratic Party is now so thoroughly infected by the Marxist, anti-life virus, that true pro-lifers and patriots must in good conscience now reject the label, though that would certainly not, as usual practice, be the modus operandi for believers. Such are the strange times we live in. Perhaps more patriotic, pro-life Democrats should follow the lead and logic of Representative Griffith of Alabama and abandon the Democratic Party all-together!

This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Congress, Culture of Corruption, Health Care, Politics, POWER GRAB!, Socialism, Socialized Health Care. Bookmark the permalink. Thursday, December 24th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
| 59 views

8 Responses to Casey (& the Whole Blue Dog Team) Strikes Out! [Reader Post]

  1. kayakbob223 says: 1

    A B C

    Abortion Bob Casey!

    I will do everything I can to see you defeated in your next election.

    Bob

    ReplyReply
  2. In the end, all Dems are libs. Being pro-life was only convenient when running for election in conservative districts and states.

    ReplyReply
  3. B-Rob says: 4

    Mike’s America, hate to break it to you, but the entire “pro-life” position is a sham. They don’t really believe abortion is murder, nor do they actually want to do what it would take to reduce abortions. Points:

    1) If abortion is murder, then it should be murder in the case of rape, incest, and life of the mother, too. Murder cannot be excused just because the circumstances of conception, or the outcome for the mother, are less than desirable.

    2) If abortion is murder, then women who have abortions should be tried for solicitation of murder. A woman who goes to an abortion clinic is paying someone to commit murder. The truly consistent pro-life position would be to have her tried, convicted and sentence to 20 years like all other murders. The pro-life side’s refusal to present such an argument, of course, belies the fact that they don’t REALLY think abortion is murder.

    3) A true pro-babies position would support some abortions. Why? Because sometimes childbirth results in a woman having a hysterectomy and ruining her chance of carrying more children. Or dying — same result. If her first gestation turns out to be her last, and she wanted to have five kids, then it would be better for her reaching that goal to not have that baby.

    4) Childbirth is inherently risky. Women still die from carrying babies and some are maimed. So where does the government, in its infinite wisdom, get the authority to force a woman to bear risks that she does not want to bear? This is especially obvious in the case of rape, or impending injury to the mother. But it is true in every case.

    5) You never see pro-life people come out in support of the things that would actually reduce abortions, like universal health care, a childbearing stipend, and some minimum level of government “child support” (to reduce any economic incentive not to carry to term) and easy access to contraception (reducing pregnancies). They are willing to run the risk of pregnancies because they do not agree with contraception; but that means that some of those conceptions that occur will end up aborted. Likewise, pro-lifers tend to be against welfare. Well, fine. But that opposition comes at the price of more women thinking they “can’t afford” to have that child and getting an abortion. If you want to reduce abortions, do what France or Sweden do. What’s that, cons? They are socialist countries? Yeah . . . and they have a fraction of the abortions we do. If you want to reduce abortions, it’s gonna cost money. If you are not wiling to spend the money, then those “precious babies” are not actually so precious to you.

    * * * **

    I have said it before and I will say it again: government is not the proper vehicle for making decisions about another person’s reproductive future or life. If you are anti-abortion, then don’t have one, women; and men, if you are anti-abortion, then don’t impregnate anyone who will have one. As long as Newt Gingrich and David Vitter and Company are bangin’ chicks on the side, though, they run the risk of personally promoting abortion by putting someone is a position to want one.

    ReplyReply
  4. mlajoie2 says: 5

    B-rob,

    Merry Christmas on the day a special Child was born.

    1) Is all killing murder? No. Is manslaughter, though not murder, morally wrong? Yes. In practical law, there are ALWAYS levels of action a government will want to take. That is a different question than the morality of the practice.
    2) Should there be levels of responsibility and punishment for the killing of human beings. There already is. The question is, is abortion the killing of a human being? You know it is. It is not the killing of a feline or canine life.
    3) You assume we have the right to decide that POTENTIAL personal injury gives us the right to kill a human being; without any of the immediacy of a self-defense incident. Law deals with actual crimes. The law is not God.
    4) Abortion is inherently risky also. In the one case you are betting on life. In the other you are betting on death. The Declaration states the right to life is a gift of God not the state. If that is true, take up your case with God.
    5) Who is going to spend the money, that’s the question. Should the State be in total control of life? The Scandinavia of 90% taxation also resulted in unprecedented suicide rates among children – were they doing a good job of ‘controlling’ the right to life? Also, “fraction” is a misleading word, implying less than half. It’s more like 2/3 or 3/4 and is heavily skewed by an imploding population. Starting in Communist Russia and across Europe abortion has destroyed the birth rate giving progressively smaller statistical samples. Plus, should moral right and wrong be a question of polls and percentages? That is argumentum ad populum.

    If you’re anti-slavery, don’t have one. That attitude does an end run about the morality of the practice itself.

    ReplyReply
  5. @B-Rob: Good grief! Is ACORN open on Christmas? Well, I guess that should be no surprise. But at least they’ll give you some time off for Druid worship later on!

    I know you think of yourself as some kind of socialist sage but all I see when you comment is “BLAH,BLAH,BLAH.”

    Sorry, but I’m not at all interested in your take on abortion or any other issue. I’m overquota for dealing with amoral socialist ninnies!

    ReplyReply
  6. FedUp says: 7

    As a proud Pennsylvanian, it is my plan to frist get rid of Benedict Specter and then go after Bob Casey – both are just another reason to repeal the 17th amendment and add term limits. I’m going to work to get a Recall Amendment for PA. Time to be able to get rid of the vermin without having to wait for another 6 years!

    btw… Merry Christmas to all at Flopping Aces! Keep up the good work!

    ReplyReply
  7. Beth just south of Berkeley and just east of San Francisco says: 8

    #4 B-Rob:

    “If abortion is murder, then it should be murder in the case of rape, incest, and life of the mother, too. Murder cannot be excused just because the circumstances of conception, or the outcome for the mother, are less than desirable.”

    And how are these circumstances not self-defense circumstances? I realize I’m responding to somebody who probably likes current British practice of prosecuting attack victims who resort to dangerous force to defend themselves against their attackers, and therefore not particularly likely to understand the point I’m trying to make. Can’t resist the temptation, though.

    “You never see pro-life people come out in support of the things that would actually reduce abortions, like universal health care, a childbearing stipend, and some minimum level of government ‘child support’”

    You mean, like, bribes? There are, unfortunately, plenty of bribes available that confer financial and other benefits for breeding willy-nilly. Supposedly, they protect babies against careless parents or just plain parental poverty. How they do that by replacing a father in the home with My Husband the State is beyond me. I dare say they’ve encouraged more neglect of babies and children than they’ve prevented, writing as I am from just south of Berkeley and just east of San Francisco (Google map it, dude).

    Of course, rather than expect some kind of breeding stipend, people could take responsibility and take steps to avoid having babies they can’t afford to raise (or aren’t interested in raising, because they diminish time available for more sex). But then, I’m responding to someone who may be likely to respond to the word “responsibility” with a blank stare.

    So, B-Rob … if you’re so all-fired pro-baby, you certainly must have been a passionate and devoted advocate for the various state and federal Born Alive Infant Protection Acts, right?

    Right?

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>